On a related note, I'm sick of hearing fellow feminists decry Clinton's "mannishness."

While feminists and progressives may disagree with Hillary's politics, I have a real problem with comparisons made between Clinton and "men." Here's a quotation from the article I just cited that irks me:

Hillary... seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.

And then this statement seems so sexist to me, I want to throw my coffee mug at the computer screen:

We don’t want the first female president to be Joe Lieberman in drag, pushing Bush-lite politics. We expect something better.

Evaluating Hillary Clinton's demeanor or even her political views based on the fact that she's a woman strikes me as incredibly sexist. What does this self-described feminist author, Susan J. Douglas, want? While I agree with Douglas about Clinton's politics and I do not want Clinton to be the next president for political reasons, I absolutely disagree that Clinton's perhaps aggressive, domineering, strong, and assertive manner of speaking makes her "Joe Liebeman in drag" or ANY guy in drag.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that a leader needs to have leadership skills. Historically, in our government and in many positions in most fields, leaders have been men. To equate leadership qualities with MANLINESS is tantamount to saying that women with leadership skills aren't capable female leaders, but rather that they're leaders who are like men. And I completely disagree. While representatives of leadership have primarily been men, for centuries, it doesn't take a man to be a good leader (a) and (b) assertiveness, strength, decisveness, and sometimes, yes, aggression are required of leaders, especially those who may be the most important leader in the Western Hemisphere/world. I also want my most important leader to be insightful, compassionate, educated, informed, and well-spoken. I want her to get along well with foreign leaders and think critically and maturely, taking all facts known into consideration before choosing to enter into military action, or any other action.

But I DO NOT CARE if she comes across more matronly on the podium or more like a CEO. Because, if she is a good leader who gets the job done, then that's all that matters to me.

To be perfectly frank, while I may not agree with Clinton's political decisions, I think she has more personality chutzpah than Kerry did and she communicates a strength of personality and a resolute will that oozes "leadership."

But that's just it: she oozes LEADERSHIP, not MANLINESS.

Let's stop giving men the keys to every high-powered position by conflating the characteristics of their professional positions with their gender.

Or, to put it another way, why couldn't I say that, since Clinton is a woman with all these amazing leadership characteristics, that other leaders who are running for office - like, say, Obama or Edwards - sound like a woman every time they pound their fists on their podiums and speak clearly and passionately, assertively and smartly about the politics of their choice?

In fact, come to think of it, I think that's what I'm going to say from now on.

If I remember correctly Susan J. Douglas is just saying what she is saying because she is a Con and HC is a Dem.

In other words Douglas is a whore and was paid to make these negative comments since the right is afraid of HC.

I also don't agree with HC on some policy issues (just like any other candidate), but I agree with you take here on the bogus terms used to label HC.

This is like the same type of crap we USE to hear about a man that crys.

I don't think Douglas is a Con, but I'm looking into it. She writes for In These Times, which I think - unless I'm totally mistaken - is considered a pretty progressive publication.

I also take issue with you calling her a 'whore' - if only because we're addressing the act of demeaning women's political views vis-a-vis gender descriptors. That insult seems antithetical to what I'm trying to point out.

She also wrote "The Mommy Myth." I didn't love/like that book, but I think it was written from a pretty liberal standpoint. Douglas has also written for The Nation, which leads me to think she is definitely not a Con.

The term whore is one that takes money for a service. This can be a man or women. But if you have a better term let me know what it is and maybe I'll start to use it.

Whore has a specific negative feminine connotation, though the original meaning is a 'lover of either sex.'

Anything more colloquially gender neutral sounds ok to me. Or whatever. Say what you want, I was just remarking on the irony of the word choice.

No problem. I just wanted to ensure I didn't offend you accidentally. On the FRAY I only like to offend on purpose. But I agree with the irony based on the topic!

It appears to me that you are correct in concluding that Douglas is not a con -- at least based on a quick survey of several of your recently published articles.

How Does Laura Bush Sleep at Night

Is Cheney Evil or Just a Weasel?

The Enduring Lies of Ronald Reagan

Not offended personally. :)

Thanks for the info. It was a few months ago I was reading something similar in the LA Times and that author was a Con.

Now this makes the entire story a lot more interesting!